Apple discussing settlement with battery maker over alleged employee poaching
In a court filing on Tuesday, Apple informed a Massachusetts federal judge that it is in discussions with A123 Systems to settle out of court a lawsuit claiming Apple poached the battery maker's key engineers for a secret internal project.
An inside look at the Venturi Buckeye Bullet 3 land speed racing vehicle with A123 battery technology.
Apple revealed that settlement talks were underway in a motion requesting an extension on the time to respond to A123's accusations of employee poaching. Presiding Judge Douglas P. Woodlock subsequently issued an electronic order granting the motion. The filing was spotted by Reuters earlier today.
In its complaint, A123 claims Apple poached five executives attached to the firm's System Venture Technologies Division, including program lead and company CTO Mujeeb Ijaz. The battery maker has not revealed what advanced initiatives its Venture Technologies arm was working on, but claims each of the engineers' projects have been shut down due to lack of suitable replacements. The employees left "under suspicious circumstances" last June.
Alongside Ijaz, defendants include former A123 employees Don Dafoe, Michael Erickson, Depeng Wang and Indrajeet Thorat, all of whom recently left the company's advanced energy storage division for Apple. Ijaz is a key target in the suit, with plaintiffs asserting that he recruited one or more of his former colleagues after joining Apple, an action that would constitute a breach of contract.
Apple was first slapped with the lawsuit last month amid chatter that the Cupertino company is hard at work on a stealth electric car project. A123's suit stoked rumors surrounding the so-called Apple Car, supposedly referred to internally as project "Titan," as the firm has a background in electric car batteries.
An inside look at the Venturi Buckeye Bullet 3 land speed racing vehicle with A123 battery technology.Apple revealed that settlement talks were underway in a motion requesting an extension on the time to respond to A123's accusations of employee poaching. Presiding Judge Douglas P. Woodlock subsequently issued an electronic order granting the motion. The filing was spotted by Reuters earlier today.
In its complaint, A123 claims Apple poached five executives attached to the firm's System Venture Technologies Division, including program lead and company CTO Mujeeb Ijaz. The battery maker has not revealed what advanced initiatives its Venture Technologies arm was working on, but claims each of the engineers' projects have been shut down due to lack of suitable replacements. The employees left "under suspicious circumstances" last June.
Alongside Ijaz, defendants include former A123 employees Don Dafoe, Michael Erickson, Depeng Wang and Indrajeet Thorat, all of whom recently left the company's advanced energy storage division for Apple. Ijaz is a key target in the suit, with plaintiffs asserting that he recruited one or more of his former colleagues after joining Apple, an action that would constitute a breach of contract.
Apple was first slapped with the lawsuit last month amid chatter that the Cupertino company is hard at work on a stealth electric car project. A123's suit stoked rumors surrounding the so-called Apple Car, supposedly referred to internally as project "Titan," as the firm has a background in electric car batteries.
Comments
Poaching? LOL! Ridiculous...
Company headed into bankruptcy, employees get offered job at different company and they take it and that is “suspicious”?
Company headed into bankruptcy, employees get offered job at different company and they take it and that is “suspicious”?
Didn't you know? It's the passengers that go down with the ship while the captain takes the lifeboats.
This is silly. Why would anyone stay at a company that is bankrupt
They left in June and bankruptcy was not filed until October. Yes, they may have known something was amiss...
To (possibly) get huge a bonus. Ask GTAT...
This Appleinsider article fails to state what law was allegedly broken. The article should summarize the grounds of the lawsuit so the reader doesn't have to take the time to read the lawsuit.
This Appleinsider article fails to state what law was allegedly broken. T
No laws were broken. If laws were broken, there would be a criminal trial, not a civil lawsuit...
The article should summarize the grounds of the lawsuit
It does...
"In its complaint, A123 claims Apple poached five executives attached to the firm's System Venture Technologies Division, including program lead and company CTO Mujeeb Ijaz. The battery maker has not revealed what advanced initiatives its Venture Technologies arm was working on, but claims each of the engineers' projects have been shut down due to lack of suitable replacements. "
Exactly, they wouldn't with a better offer. Maybe the top execs intended to go into bankruptcy, avoid their debtors, cream the share holders and exit with a fresh start and take home massive bonuses. Then start over with the same staff ... except they some key players left for Apple ... oops.
Someone out there is illegally hunting geeks. If you see anyone with stuffed nerds mounted on their wall let the authorities know right away.
I get a mental image of a nerd in a pot of boiling water ...
Judge Koh should take over this case. Since she let go forward the ruling for Apple (and other's) anti-poaching agreements, now it's the time to strike back against Apple for poaching employees from other companies.
Oh and yes, poaching: "[to] take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way."
Why don't we just put in an Apple tax. Just because Apple has money, why not take out XX% of that and distribute this to clueless headless chickens on a recurring basis.
No laws were broken. If laws were broken, there would be a criminal trial, not a civil lawsuit...
It does...
"In its complaint, A123 claims Apple poached five executives attached to the firm's System Venture Technologies Division, including program lead and company CTO Mujeeb Ijaz. The battery maker has not revealed what advanced initiatives its Venture Technologies arm was working on, but claims each of the engineers' projects have been shut down due to lack of suitable replacements. "
Thanks, but a rule of common law, or a statutory law that is actionable by a private party must have been broken in order for there to be a civil lawsuit.
"Apple poached five executives"--How is hiring away employees from another company not lawful?
Now I have an idea, hear me out:
Judge Koh should take over this case. Since she let go forward the ruling for Apple (and other's) anti-poaching agreements, now it's the time to strike back against Apple for poaching employees from other companies.
Oh and yes, poaching: "[to] take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way."
Why don't we just put in an Apple tax. Just because Apple has money, why not take out XX% of that and distribute this to clueless headless chickens on a recurring basis.
This is what confuses me. First we are told Apple has to pay $415 million to tech workers because Apple entered into anti-poaching agreements. Now we are told Apple is negotiating to pay another company money for poaching. First, poaching is good. Now poaching is bad.
Now I have an idea, hear me out:
Judge Koh should take over this case. Since she let go forward the ruling for Apple (and other's) anti-poaching agreements, now it's the time to strike back against Apple for poaching employees from other companies.
Oh and yes, poaching: "[to] take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way."
Why don't we just put in an Apple tax. Just because Apple has money, why not take out XX% of that and distribute this to clueless headless chickens on a recurring basis.
You make NO SENSE AT ALL. You do realize the other ruling was because they WEREN'T POACHING. Good grief!!
Hiring people from other companies is allowed; it pisses off the competition, but so what.
Bet this will be settle for quite low and everybody will go on their merry old way.
If you want an article that covers the legal details more fully (and two weeks ago), try http://www.law360.com/articles/622308/apple-poached-workers-for-new-battery-division-a123-says. ;
In brief: Apple's accused of misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference (intentional interference with contractual relations), raiding (of employees, not villages), and unfair competition. There's a pretty clear -- and brief -- explanation of the general legal issues at stake (with no reference to this dispute) at: http://mccandlishlawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Raiding-Competitors-Emp.pdf.
An excerpt from the latter:
You make NO SENSE AT ALL. You do realize the other ruling was because they WEREN'T POACHING. Good grief!!
Hiring people from other companies is allowed; it pisses off the competition, but so what.
Bet this will be settle for quite low and everybody will go on their merry old way.
Yes I do understand that. I'll add an /s to my future posts so you don't have to grieve. :-)
Oh and I said it because the anti-poaching suit was ridiculous and so is this one.
Thanks, but a rule of common law, or a statutory law that is actionable by a private party must have been broken in order for there to be a civil lawsuit.
"Apple poached five executives"--How is hiring away employees from another company not lawful?
Well, when I imagine the conversations that were had when Apple approached these people for jobs (or, quite possibly, the other way around, doesn't matter) I see this:
(1) at some point, the employee told Apple about their existing contracts that didn't allow them to leave A123 for this particular job, or
(2) the employee never mentioned it and hoped to escape A123 without consequence
I figure that (2) is unlikely. But in the case of (2) Apple would be free and clear of any lawsuit.
If (1) above was true, and Apple offered the person a job anyway, then I see this:
(a) Apple either offered to indemnify the person if they broke their existing agreement and were called to task by A123, or
(b) Apple said "take it or leave it", and the person took it and hoped to escape A123 without consequence
Looking at the above possibilities, the most likely circumstance that might lead to Apple seeking out a settlement involve (1a). A secondary (but less likely) scenario is that (1b) occurred, but now Apple doesn't want to put their new, hopefully prized, employees in a bad financial spot, so they are coming to their rescue. Of course it's even possible that (2) above occurred and Apple is only finding out about it now, but (again) they want to protect their new employees.
There is nothing above that I find unethical, and only (1a) would make Apple a legitimate target of the lawsuit (which they were named on).
I'm thinking that Apple gambled on (1a) and now they are living up to their pledge.
Nothing insidious here... just business.
For these 5 experts that were "poached" for an important project, I'd say that was a believable theory. And now Apple is doing the indemnification.
I get a mental image of a nerd in a pot of boiling water ...
I'll have a poached employee breakfast special with a side of bacon.